Speeding Charge (Scotland) - What To Do Next?
Discussion
You'd be extremely lucky if calibration checks weren't done. Every officer knows to check the date on the gun and also run simple checks before taking it out. It takes 30 seconds to do and then put a little note in your notebook. We do it daily. The guns are sent for yearly calibration a month before they expire too so no chance of a non calibrated gun being out there.
I think I might be joining the ranks of those caught in Scotland.
I was on the A74(M) yesterday afternoon and was doing an indicated 82/83, so probably actual 80mph (speedo is pretty accurate if GPS is to be believed) when I spotted a van on one of the bridges.
Very much doubt I slowed in time to avoid the inevitable.
I shall expect my FPN in the post in a few weeks (lease car).
I was on the A74(M) yesterday afternoon and was doing an indicated 82/83, so probably actual 80mph (speedo is pretty accurate if GPS is to be believed) when I spotted a van on one of the bridges.
Very much doubt I slowed in time to avoid the inevitable.
I shall expect my FPN in the post in a few weeks (lease car).
A friend of mine got pinged for 96 on the A832. No FPN offered. Instead a citation to appear in front of the Sheriff at Inverness. An expensive day out. As he is from well south of Hadrian's Wall, a train journey there and back in one day was impossible. It cost him a plane ticket, an overnight hotel, plus 6 points and a £400 fine.
It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
redback911 said:
Not too bad, 3-points is a let off in soon-to-be-independent Scotland. I was caught doing 71 in 50 (on the A1M and 500m past the national speed limit signs) and received 5-points, which also required a visit to see the sheriff. Add the fine and solicitor fees and it cost £1500 in total.
A1M in Scotland? Where? As far as I know (and I travel Edinburgh to Berwick regularly) there is no A1M in Scotland. Dual carriageway, yes. But no "M" designation. Red Devil said:
A friend of mine got pinged for 96 on the A832. No FPN offered. Instead a citation to appear in front of the Sheriff at Inverness. An expensive day out. As he is from well south of Hadrian's Wall, a train journey there and back in one day was impossible. It cost him a plane ticket, an overnight hotel, plus 6 points and a £400 fine.
It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
It's such a fantastic section of road as well and 96 is very easy to do (I am led to believe, ahem). I've not been there for a couple of years but it's so quiet it's hard to believe they would actually put a speed trap there. Is there a significant accident rate on this road??It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
grumpyscot said:
A1M in Scotland? Where? As far as I know (and I travel Edinburgh to Berwick regularly) there is no A1M in Scotland. Dual carriageway, yes. But no "M" designation.
You're right, Wikipedia says no "M" in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1(M)_motorway.jm doc said:
Red Devil said:
A friend of mine got pinged for 96 on the A832. No FPN offered. Instead a citation to appear in front of the Sheriff at Inverness. An expensive day out. As he is from well south of Hadrian's Wall, a train journey there and back in one day was impossible. It cost him a plane ticket, an overnight hotel, plus 6 points and a £400 fine.
It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
It's such a fantastic section of road as well and 96 is very easy to do (I am led to believe, ahem). I've not been there for a couple of years but it's so quiet it's hard to believe they would actually put a speed trap there. Is there a significant accident rate on this road??It probably didn't help that it was only a week after Dutchman Esdert Prins was caught at 130 in a Porsche 911 on the same stretch of road.
The section west of Achanalt station has a disproportionate number of laybys where they can lie in wait. This one of their favourites.
Note the strategically placed bushes.
- https://goo.gl/maps/dwAZ8QcKrQm* Another is also on the A832 near Kinlochewe - https://goo.gl/maps/zNqzNXJum4m
take the fpn - absolutely
as an aside - as this has drifted off into discussions of what is and what isn't DD:
CPS guidance:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...
relevant Road Traffic Act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Note there is no cut off speed at which a speeding offence becomes DD.
as an aside - as this has drifted off into discussions of what is and what isn't DD:
CPS guidance:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...
relevant Road Traffic Act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Note there is no cut off speed at which a speeding offence becomes DD.
janesmith1950 said:
How much of that guidance applies to Scotland (not that anybody has claimed there is a cut off speed)?
There is no CPS in Scotland. Prosecution is carried out by the Procurator Fiscal service.Regardless of some of the claims on here, you do run a serious risk of prosecution for DD based on speed alone. There is a more than one stated case demonsrating this. Just cool it on the motorway and you won't have a problem.
Or come back in a couple of years by which time there will be no police cars whatever left on the roads and you can do what you like.
J
jith said:
janesmith1950 said:
How much of that guidance applies to Scotland (not that anybody has claimed there is a cut off speed)?
There is no CPS in Scotland. Prosecution is carried out by the Procurator Fiscal service.Regardless of some of the claims on here, you do run a serious risk of prosecution for DD based on speed alone. There is a more than one stated case demonsrating this. Just cool it on the motorway and you won't have a problem.
Or come back in a couple of years by which time there will be no police cars whatever left on the roads and you can do what you like.
J
true, my mistake - it's http://copfs.gov.uk/ which carries no useful information that I can glean. The road traffic act is relevant though and I wouldn't have thought the procurator fiscal is too far away from cps guidance (I have no evidence for this assumption - you would have to look over relevant case law in scotland)
jith said:
Or come back in a couple of years by which time there will be no police cars whatever left on the roads and you can do what you like.
based on?jm doc said:
It's desperate up there now.
what makes you say that? (just curious)The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
leighz said:
true, my mistake - it's http://copfs.gov.uk/ which carries no useful information that I can glean. The road traffic act is relevant though and I wouldn't have thought the procurator fiscal is too far away from cps guidance (I have no evidence for this assumption - you would have to look over relevant case law in scotland)
Slightly OTT probably but recent trips up there over the last couple of years have been horrific with large stretches of completely innocuous roads covered in SPECS camera, half empty three lane motorways with camera vans in the evening, and this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads. Driving really felt very unpleasant and threatening and it's put me off going back for sometime. I guess with independence looming it's going to be the only way to get money to support their national socialist policies, given the collapse of oil. jith said:
Or come back in a couple of years by which time there will be no police cars whatever left on the roads and you can do what you like.
based on?jm doc said:
It's desperate up there now.
what makes you say that? (just curious)jm doc said:
...this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads.
Where in this thread has there been any mention of this? Definitely not the case for my friend btw: double crewed car.I accept it doesn't prove anything, but I have never seen one in 7 years of visiting such roads north and west of the A82.
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
...this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads.
Where in this thread has there been any mention of this? Definitely not the case for my friend btw: double crewed car.I accept it doesn't prove anything, but I have never seen one in 7 years of visiting such roads north and west of the A82.
janesmith1950 said:
The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
The problem I have with these stated cases is that the concept of danger based on speed is clearly an assumption. It is a very, very bad ruling. One of these cases involved the driver being pursued and stopped by a patrol car as opposed to a camera detection. The police were obviously travelling at greater speed than the accused to catch him, but it would appear the court decided that their greater speed was not dangerous, but the lesser of the accused was. The police do not have an exemption on dangerous driving, only on speed.To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
This ruling needs challenging to disprove the concept.
J
janesmith1950 said:
The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
I don't read it as the Scottish courts leaning in favour of speed alone being sufficient, I believe they still require other evidence to demonstrate potential problems. They just appear to happier to interpret it as dangerous where you might consider there is a lower probability of that potential becoming reality than English courts, but the demonstrative potential still needed to exist.To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
jith said:
janesmith1950 said:
The relevant case law in Scotland is different to that in England and Wales, hence the comments in this thread on the matter.
To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
The problem I have with these stated cases is that the concept of danger based on speed is clearly an assumption. It is a very, very bad ruling. One of these cases involved the driver being pursued and stopped by a patrol car as opposed to a camera detection. The police were obviously travelling at greater speed than the accused to catch him, but it would appear the court decided that their greater speed was not dangerous, but the lesser of the accused was. The police do not have an exemption on dangerous driving, only on speed.To paraphrase, the Scottish courts have leaned more in favour of speed alone being sufficient evidence, without the same reliance on demonstrable and specific dangers alongside the speed, as typified by the courts south of the border.
In other words, all things being equal, 120mph on the M6 north of Carlisle is much less likely to end in a DD charge than the same 5 miles north on the M74. Same road standards, same drivers, same actions, different interpretation of the law.
This ruling needs challenging to disprove the concept.
J
For instance, any member of the public who drove for twenty miles through heavy slow moving traffic on a single carriageway road, often offside of the road effectively filtering between the two opposing lanes of traffic & (safely) on numerous occasions to the right of keep left bollards, would be fairly certain to be found guilty of a Sec 2/3 RTA offence. A Police officer doing the same on blues & twos without any aggravating circumstances wouldn't be getting anywhere near a court.
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
...this latest about camera vans on deserted highland roads.
Where in this thread has there been any mention of this? Definitely not the case for my friend btw: double crewed car.I accept it doesn't prove anything, but I have never seen one in 7 years of visiting such roads north and west of the A82.
Red Devil said in reply
I don't have any stats on the accident rate but it's definitely the most likely place in the north west Highlands to be caught.*
The section west of Achanalt station has a disproportionate number of laybys where they can lie in wait. This one of their favourites.
Note the strategically placed bushes. wink - https://goo.gl/maps/dwAZ8QcKrQm
* Another is also on the A832 near Kinlochewe - https://goo.gl/maps/zNqzNXJum4m"
Apologies for the confusion on my part. I thought these were camera van locations. Is a double crewed car on these roads really any better??
Edited by jm doc on Friday 1st July 23:20
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff